Leading MTA Critic Makes U-Turn, Says Enough Buses Are in Service

After a bitter, five-year legal fight over bus service to poor communities, a chief advocate for bus riders stunned MTA officials Thursday by saying it appears that enough buses are currently in service to end the battle for now.

Eric Mann, leader of the group whose lawsuit resulted in court orders that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority increase bus service, said for the first time that the agency appeared to be obeying that mandate.

“Our understanding as we look at the data is that you have met the criteria” of the federal agreement, Mann told the MTA board before a crowd of about 200. “I am saying publicly, ‘It looks like you have already’ ” put enough buses on the road to currently satisfy the agreement.

The agreement and subsequent court rulings require that the MTA fix the problem of overcrowding by adding hundreds of buses in Los Angeles County. The MTA has continued to fight some requirements, and has been considering taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mann and his group have consistently railed at the MTA, arguing bitterly that the agency was not putting enough buses in service. But he said Thursday that after a recent review of bus lines with new MTA leadership, he is satisfied the agency is now running about 350 additional buses, reducing overcrowding.

Mann said there are about 2,100 buses in the fleet now, with approximately 400 spares.

MTA officials reacted warmly.

Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn, a member of the MTA board, called Mann’s comments “an olive branch” and said he was confident the continued legal fight the agency has been threatening would stop.

Since signing the agreement in 1996, the MTA has appealed it four times. The agency has lost at every turn, and the only remaining appeal would be to the U.S. Supreme Court. The deadline for that is Jan. 14.

In closed session later Thursday, the MTA board postponed a decision on whether to appeal while it tries to hammer out consensus with Mann’s group on other parts of the agreement that could require hundreds more buses.

MTA Chairman John Fasana said the board has new confidence in the progress of meetings between the union and Roger Snoble, the agency’s new chief executive.

The meetings are being held to monitor overcrowding on buses and to clarify ambiguous parts of the federal agreement calling for more service. Those sections are open to a fair amount of interpretation, a problem that led to much of the legal tussle after it was signed.

Representatives of the Bus Riders Union involved in the talks said Snoble and his new staff seem to have a better understanding of transit issues than former MTA head Julian Burke, a lawyer who had never worked in the public sector before he took the helm at the MTA in 1997.

Snoble has worked for transit agencies for three decades, most recently heading Dallas’ system.

Mann’s remarks Thursday contrasted sharply with his previous criticism. Just after the MTA announced at a board meeting in September that it was complying with the order to put the buses in service, Mann railed, “They are liars! The MTA is playing a shell game, a numbers game.”

An underlying issue is the MTA’s concern that money spent buying and operating hundreds of new buses will lessen the chances the agency can make planned freeway and light rail improvements.

And the Bus Riders Union and some local activists have expressed concern about the precedent that could be set if the Supreme Court takes the case and rules in favor of the MTA.

They worry that such a ruling would weaken existing federal civil rights agreements that have forced changes in everything from education to environmental regulations to police practices.

Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan agreed Thursday that the effects of a Supreme Court victory could be widespread.

It could embolden government agencies in similar civil rights cases across the nation to ask that their agreements also be reviewed.

But Karlan said she didn’t think the Supreme Court would take the case because its problems didn’t meet the court’s level.

Karlan added that the MTA “waived their rights” by voluntarily signing the agreement.

“Nobody held a gun to their head. If they thought their autonomy was being trampled they should have litigated the case to begin with rather than signing this agreement.”